Focus on the front sight? It seems wrong to me. Here's why:

[netsecurity]

Hmmm... So I'm a bit confused. In defensive shooting classes you are taught to focus on the front sight. If I understand you correctly you are saying that for a moving target you should focus on the target. Defensive shooting is very dynamic with lots of movement. Does this mean that in a defensive shooting situation where the target is moving you should have target focus?

I suspect it has more to do with distance. Even if something is moving at 300y, you should still be able to focus on the sights. But Ima thinkin' that target focus is the only way to go with close range and volatile situations--if nothing else, than for situational awareness. Clay pigeons aren't usually that far away, maybe what I'd consider "medium" distance, but they move relatively fast.

 

[roadrunner681]

I suspect it has more to do with distance. Even if something is moving at 300y, you should still be able to focus on the sights. But Ima thinkin' that target focus is the only way to go with close range and volatile situations--if nothing else, than for situational awareness. Clay pigeons aren't usually that far away, maybe what I'd consider "medium" distance, but they move relatively fast.

true but clays are most of the time changing altitude and distance from you, also a car that goes by you at 30 mph 25 yards away seems like its moving pretty good, but the same car 200 yards away looks like its going slower, since its closer you have to move the gun alot more to aim at it, at 200 yards the gun doesn't need to be swung as quickly to keep it on target.

 

[bullet]

I just keep pulling the trigger like a wild man until I hit the target.

It worked real well for this guy.

Warning Language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efeBh4T9yao

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Honest question, do you have any issues with your eyes? The target and the rear sight should be blurry. If the target is so blurry that you can't see it well enough to hit it accurately. I would be going to the eye Dr. I wear contacts, and have an astigmatism in both eyes. I can see the target clearly out to 25 yards with my pistols.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I suspect it has more to do with distance. Even if something is moving at 300y, you should still be able to focus on the sights. But Ima thinkin' that target focus is the only way to go with close range and volatile situations--if nothing else, than for situational awareness. Clay pigeons aren't usually that far away, maybe what I'd consider "medium" distance, but they move relatively fast.

At close range, I point shoot. Honestly, you should be able to hit your target out to 15 yards without using your sights at all. Are you going to be pinpoint accurate, no, but if it's a matter of getting that initial shot off, you can then use your sights for follow up shots.

 

[cedartop]

At close range, I point shoot. Honestly, you should be able to hit your target out to 15 yards without using your sights at all. Are you going to be pinpoint accurate, no, but if it's a matter of getting that initial shot off, you can then use your sights for follow up shots.

You are right about the vision thing.

I come from a school that emphasizes "point" shooting, and I still would not recommend doing it out to 15 yards. That is definitely in the realm of sight focused fire. Can you make hits at that distance point shooting? Sure, DR Middlebrooks can do it to 100 yards, but under stress with movement maybe mixed in I feel it is irresponsible to urge the average gunowner to point shoot at that distance.

 

[Rob377]

I shoot one ragged hole groups at 25yds point shooting. True story.

 

[cedartop]

I shoot one ragged hole groups at 25yds point shooting. True story.

So would you advocate that the average shooter point shot at 25 yards in a self defense situation?

 

[Rob377]

So would you advocate that the average shooter point shot at 25 yards in a self defense situation?

I didn't lay the sarcasm on thick enough? Between the "true story" and the clichė gun forum "one ragged hole" bit, I'd have thought it pretty obvious.

Facetious comments aside, I agree with you. I highly doubt that most shooters can get a zone hits at 15+ without sight, and that doubt increases exponentially when you add in any kind of time pressure or movement.

 

[cedartop]

I didn't lay the sarcasm on thick enough? Between the "true story" and the clichė gun forum "one ragged hole" bit, I'd have thought it pretty obvious.

Facetious comments aside, I agree with you. I highly doubt that most shooters can get a zone hits at 15+ without sight, and that doubt increases exponentially when you add in any kind of time pressure or movement.

I assumed it was sarcasm, but it is really hard to tell here anymore.

 

[Rob377]

I assumed it was sarcasm, but it is really hard to tell here anymore.

Assuming sarcasm on my part, you've got about a 90% chance of being right. Illustrating absurdity through use of the absurd.

Shooting related bluster and empty braggadocio isn't new though. The guys that do it just took their tales of shooting awesomeness from the gun store counter to the keyboard. AlGore simply gave them a new outlet.


The moral of the story is see what you need to see to get the hit you want. What you need to see is a continuum that can range from the outline of the gun on target to a perfect equal-height, equal-light sight picture and everything in between. The level of sight awareness you'll need to get the desired hit will vary with range, target size, and skill level. A very small, close target may still require use of sights. A somewhat distant but really big target may not. Hyper skilled guys that shoot for a living like Taran Butler can get away with not using the sights on further/smaller targets than Joe CCW can. Wide open target at 7yds? OK, point shooting. Head shot at 7yds next to/surrounded by something you really, really, really don't want to hit? Probably want at minimum to see the sight roughly centered in the notch at roughly the same height.
So a hard n' fast rule that "shots below x yds can be point shot, and shots over x yds need a sight focus" isn't especially useful. There's quite a bit more to it than that.

Enos' focus types are a really good way to think about that continuum. Anyone who wants to be a better shooter in ANY context should get it.

When a moving target is introduced, it doesn't really change much as far as what you need to see to get the hit you want. If the static target at 50yds or whatever required a perfect equal height, equal light sight picture, the moving target requires the same, at least at the instant the shot breaks. This is where the shift RVB was talking about comes in, along with the "tracking" or "ambushing" method.


All of this assumes you can pull the trigger straight to the rear without disturbing the sights, of course. None of the above matters much if can't do that.

I don't know that the clay bird sports are direct analogy. The amount of precision needed when you have a 18-25" cloud of 400+ projectiles is probably ALOT less than having one single 0.355-0.45 projectile. Squirrels or groundhogs with a 22, or deer with a slug are probably better analogues.

 

[esrice]

What you need to see is a continuum that can range from the outline of the gun on target to a perfect equal-height, equal-light sight picture and everything in between. The level of sight awareness you'll need to get the desired hit will vary with range, target size, and skill level.

There we go.

(rep for Rob twice in the same month? Uh-oh. . .)

 

[actaeon277]

So far, I've been shooting the gun into the air, and letting gravity bring it down into the target. It still needs some work though.

 

[sloughfoot]

I took a point shooting class in 2006 put on by my good friend Curlee at the Roanoke PD range. By the end of the day all 10 of us in the class were getting 100% hits on silhouette targets out to 25 yards or so. We were always in motion while shooting. The targets did not move or shoot back. We were all pretty highly experienced on the square range using sights prior to the class.

It was a great confidence builder. I don't recommend point sahooting for someone trying to figure out where to focus.

NRA Bullseye is a great place to figure out where to focus....

 

[MikeDVB]

irons aren't made for pinpoint accuracy?

No, they're not maid for shooting the head off of a match at 300 yards . They're designed for their specific purpose - such as a handgun has sights with a man-sized target at a reasonable distance in mind.

I'm not saying you can't be pinpoint accurate with iron sights - but just that it wasn't what they were designed for. That said - the gun is as accurate as it will be regardless of what sights are on it - it depends on the sights themselves and the person using them as to how accurate they can be with that particular setup.

Optics are easier and often faster solely because they allow you focus on the target AND your sights. Since this was a pistol-irons post and few are running red dots or scopes, we'll leave the talk about irons.

I think you're mixing up "you can't be accurate with iron sights" [not what I said] with "iron sights were not designed for pin-point accuracy."

But if you've already made up your mind today you won't use the sights, then you probably won't. Doesn't mean that's how it has to be, imo...

Never said my mind was made up - when it comes down to it I won't have time to think about it [hopefully it never comes down to it]. I will just do what works best for me without hesitation [hopefully].

 

[wesnellans]

So far, I've been shooting the gun into the air, and letting gravity bring it down into the target. It still needs some work though.

 

[metaldog]

So far, I've been shooting the gun into the air, and letting gravity bring it down into the target. It still needs some work though.

AHA! So you're the guy!
Jan 1st this year (after the New Years Eve festivities), I get in my car to head to work & find a bullet lodged in the lower corner of my windshield. Left a nice spider web too.
That Little stunt, mister, cost me $200! Thanks alot!

JK! True story tho.

 

[actaeon277]

AHA! So you're the guy!
Jan 1st this year (after the New Years Eve festivities), I get in my car to head to work & find a bullet lodged in the lower corner of my windshield. Left a nice spider web too.
That Little stunt, mister, cost me $200! Thanks alot!

JK! True story tho.

I get a little closer than Indy.

 

[rvb]

Assuming sarcasm on my part, you've got about a 90% chance of being right. Illustrating absurdity through use of the absurd.

Shooting related bluster and empty braggadocio isn't new though. The guys that do it just took their tales of shooting awesomeness from the gun store counter to the keyboard. AlGore simply gave them a new outlet.


The moral of the story is see what you need to see to get the hit you want. What you need to see is a continuum that can range from the outline of the gun on target to a perfect equal-height, equal-light sight picture and everything in between. The level of sight awareness you'll need to get the desired hit will vary with range, target size, and skill level. A very small, close target may still require use of sights. A somewhat distant but really big target may not. Hyper skilled guys that shoot for a living like Taran Butler can get away with not using the sights on further/smaller targets than Joe CCW can. Wide open target at 7yds? OK, point shooting. Head shot at 7yds next to/surrounded by something you really, really, really don't want to hit? Probably want at minimum to see the sight roughly centered in the notch at roughly the same height.
So a hard n' fast rule that "shots below x yds can be point shot, and shots over x yds need a sight focus" isn't especially useful. There's quite a bit more to it than that.

Enos' focus types are a really good way to think about that continuum. Anyone who wants to be a better shooter in ANY context should get it.

When a moving target is introduced, it doesn't really change much as far as what you need to see to get the hit you want. If the static target at 50yds or whatever required a perfect equal height, equal light sight picture, the moving target requires the same, at least at the instant the shot breaks. This is where the shift RVB was talking about comes in, along with the "tracking" or "ambushing" method.


All of this assumes you can pull the trigger straight to the rear without disturbing the sights, of course. None of the above matters much if can't do that.

I don't know that the clay bird sports are direct analogy. The amount of precision needed when you have a 18-25" cloud of 400+ projectiles is probably ALOT less than having one single 0.355-0.45 projectile. Squirrels or groundhogs with a 22, or deer with a slug are probably better analogues.

Sooooo..... that was all sarcasm, right?

Was that sarcasm? - YouTube

-rvb

 

[rvb]

I come from a school that emphasizes "point" shooting, and I still would not recommend doing it out to 15 yards. That is definitely in the realm of sight focused fire. Can you make hits at that distance point shooting? Sure, DR Middlebrooks can do it to 100 yards, but under stress with movement maybe mixed in I feel it is irresponsible to urge the average gunowner to point shoot at that distance.

I took a point shooting class in 2006 put on by my good friend Curlee at the Roanoke PD range. By the end of the day all 10 of us in the class were getting 100% hits on silhouette targets out to 25 yards or so. We were always in motion while shooting. The targets did not move or shoot back. We were all pretty highly experienced on the square range using sights prior to the class.

"point shooting" is one of those terms that can mean something different to different people. What does it mean to you guys? What are you seeing?

When I hear the term "point shooting," I think of it synonomously w/ "hip shooting," or even "retention" shooting. ie just point your finger at the target, no need to align eyes/gun/target. You're getting 100% reliable 25yd hits w/ that method? I don't trust myself past maybe 2 yds for a first shot hit from a holster w/ the gun down below my eyes (eg from retention), especially w/ movement, etc.

-rvb